Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sunshadow who wrote (98250)	12/2/2000 10:55:20 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

In Florida, every voter has an "Voter's ID card". You get it when you register. It has a number on it. That is the "Voter ID Number" that they are talking about. It's how they identify a voter when he shows up at the polls. You are not REQUIRED to present it, but it's a big hassle if you don't because one of the election officials has to take the voter's ID and call in to check and see if the person is registered, etc. On the absentee ballot REQUESTS in question, the Republicans (not the Democrats who got it right and had the ID printed on their absentee ballot requests) either forgot to have the ID numbers attached to the request or the printer who printed the requests screwed up. As far as where things went from there, I have no idea. Any argument that the votes are not valid because of this error presumes that the voter committed some crime. If the voter didn't do anything wrong, then there is no valid argument to have his vote tossed. If they DO get tossed, you'll see a riot in Seminole by those voters. A real one, not the "white shirt and tie mob" jazz in Miami.

To: sunshadow who wrote (98250)	12/2/2000 11:31:34 AM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769667

Good point, sunshadow. This is why they will NOT throw out the absentees in Seminole. "... If I understand it correctly this ID was suppose to be part of the preprinted app meaning the voter would have not filled that part out... it would have already been done by a third party, the printer. Is the printer a legal ok, but not the Repub/Demo ?" I think this whole battle being waged by the demos is predicated on finding loopholes and technicalities that work in their favor. They claim to be guided by principal, but it is obvious they are not based this case and the military ballot rejections. That is why I am hoping upon hope that the USSC rules that the laws should be followed as their most obvious reading suggests. Plenty of people listen to Ginsberg's questions and feel she (and perhaps the whole court) will rule in Gore's favor, but I think she just posed the questions as part of the USSC's attempt to cover all angles. I don't see how she (or anyone) can listen to the questions from O'Conner, Scalia, etc. and say that those viewpoints are wrong. We will see. I think the USSC will issue their opinion on Monday.